David Begg: Get these two tonne monsters off the roads

'If you are hit in the side by a 4x4 you are 27 times more likely to be killed'

I'm concerned about the increase in the number of people driving 4x4s in our towns and cities. It's a growing problem. In my role as Chairman of the Commission for Integrated Transport, and also Chairman of the National Transport Advisory Group, I'd like us to find a solution.

I'm concerned about the increase in the number of people driving 4x4s in our towns and cities. It's a growing problem. In my role as Chairman of the Commission for Integrated Transport, and also Chairman of the National Transport Advisory Group, I'd like us to find a solution.

There are a number of reasons why people like 4x4s, also known as sports utility vehicles (SUVs). Drivers feel safer in them and think they'll be better protected in a collision.

I'm Director for Transport Policy at the Robert Gordon University, Aberdeen and understand why people want to drive 4x4s in the countryside. They cope better with the mud and snow in places like Scotland.

Drivers also sometimes purchase 4x4s as a status symbol. Most families will use their vehicle for a multitude of uses, so they'll drive in the country, but also on trips into town - and this is where the problems arise.

There are two things I dislike about 4x4s in urban areas. The first is pollution, these cars are worse for the environment than smaller cars. They emit four times more carbon dioxide. The best way to deal with that is an increase in tax. It's a familiar slogan - polluters should pay more. Then it's up to them whether or not they continue driving these vehicles.

The second is how dangerous 4x4s are to other road users. The drivers of these vehicles might be safer in a collision, but the other motorist or pedestrian is in more danger.

I was shocked to find that as a driver, if you are hit in the side by a 4x4 you are 27 times more likely to be killed. Pedestrians are two or three times more likely to be killed if they are hit by an SUV. The danger arises because of the height of the bonnet and bumper. For example, if you hit a child whilst driving, you will probably hit that child below the waist. The child will be propelled up onto the windscreen, and, if you're travelling at 20mph or less, that child will have a chance of survival.

It's a different story with a 4x4. You will hit the child above the waist, and flatten them. These vehicles weigh two tonnes, and that's another factor that makes them dangerous.

We have to put collective safety above individual safety. There have been some changes in the design of 4x4s. Bull bars, for example, have been removed. They were fine if you were likely to crash into an animal, but driving through a city you were more likely to hit a person.

There's still a long way to go with the design. The bumpers and bonnets are still far too high. The probability of serious head and thoracic injury is substantially greater. Ordinary cars tend to cause leg injuries, which are less likely to kill. Legislation coming in to force in 2005 will mean manufacturers have to use new materials to soften up some of the areas around the bonnet so they reduce the impact on pedestrians. However, this only applies to new models of cars so we have to continue to press the manufacturers to make alterations on new production of the existing models.

So we've made some progress, but we need more. We could also impose a higher vehicle excise duty on those who drive 4x4s but live in urban areas. The French have done it and it's a fairer approach. The problem with the higher vehicle tax is that it is difficult to enforce. How do you classify an urban area or a market town?

Drivers in rural areas do need these cars. That's why I don't believe we should legislate immediately, we need to look at all the options. Working with manufacturers is one, and looking at ways to target urban 4 x 4 drivers is another. There will be a solution, we just have to find it.